AZ Supreme Court recently issued a decision with a pretty strict interpretation of the "Gift Clause" (the provision under which the Derby GPLET was found illegal):
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...d=2&as_sdt=4,3
That case was not a GPLET case per se, but it requires a pretty stringent analysis about whether a municipality is getting "sufficient consideration" for tax breaks. Basically cities have to show that their giveaway is not "grossly disproportionate" to the returned benefits. The AZ Supreme Court case was frankly much more egregious than most GPLET cases--Peoria basically gave millions in benefits and tax breaks to a private college with the only expected return being vague "economic impact" from the college. But I do think we can expect more strict enforcement of the Gift Clause moving forward. There was an interesting podcast on the Strong Towns-related podcast "Upzoned" recently about it that's a good listen:
https://www.strongtowns.org/podcast.
As for the Derby GPLET case, it was not appealed (
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.go...=CV2017-001742). I don't know, but I have to wonder whether that was a strategic decision on the City's part to avoid a potentially adverse and precedential Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court's ruling.
Quote:
|
I'm not too sure how litigation exactly works. In my view, Derby originally went for the 25 year GPLET which went to court, lost and the 25 year GPLET was determined to be illegal. However, I believe the 25 year GPLET got whittled down to an 8 year GPLET and Derby could have still qualified for that, correct?
|
Yes, the Derby GPLET that was ruled illegal was a 25-year one. Per biggus's link, I'm seeing that Derby has a "development agreement," but isn't subject to an excise tax. I frankly am not sure what the difference is, or what exactly benefits they're getting if any.
Prev
Linear Mode
